Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In the Second Appeal, the following questions have been raised as Substantial Questions of Law by the appellant :

1. Whether the suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable in the absence of any document to prove the width of the pathway ?
2. Whether the first appellate court is right in reversing the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court only relying on the Advocate-Commissioner's Report, Ex.C.1 ?
3. Whether is not burden of proof solely on the plaintiff to prove that there was a common pathway measuring 14 feet width and has not the first appellate court erred in shifting the burden on the defendant ?
4. In the absence of any complaint of encroachment by other land owners, has not the first appellate court erred in holding there is an encroachment ?
5. In the absence of the title deed not mentioned the width of the common pathway is not the burden proving the width of the common pathway on the plaintiff ?
6. Is not the appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary of the appellate court is perverse ?
4. Mr.Ramanujam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the impugned Judgment and Decree on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff, seeking mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, without a prayer for declaration of right is not legally sustainable and further contended that the first appellate court has solely relied on Ex.C.1, Advocate-Commissioner's Report for decreeing the suit. Similarly, according to the learned counsel, the 14 feet width of the common road was not established by the plaintiff and the burden cannot be shifted on the appellant, who was the defendant in the suit.